New 4x5 film processing system on Kickstarter, $47.

<p>We've just launched a kickstarter for a new sheet film processing system. It will processes four sheets of 4x5 in 16 oz of solution. Details at:<br /> <br /> <a href="https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1653453089/sp-445-compact-4x5-film-processing-system" target="_blank">https://www.kickstarter.com/projects...cessing-system</a><br /> <br /> We're currently working on the next prototype, so send us your comments and suggestions. <br /> The biggest question: is a four sheet capacity enough?</p>

<p>A neat idea, but far too late to market I'm afraid.<br /> You can tell by the low activity on this forum (no new post in 3 days) that LF photography is dying and has very few users. Besides, there's nothing wrong with the existing Jobo rotary system. I find the 5x4 holder easy to load, even without the aid of the dedicated loader, and the tanks require only a moderate amount of solution. A Jobo CPE-2 processor also enables tight temperature control for colour work. There's also the simple expedient of dish processing if you have a darkroom.</p>

<p>I really can't see a break-even on that $27.7k investment being achieved in any realistic time-frame.</p>

<p>Actually, I like it. I think 4 sheets is plenty - if processing more at one time, I would use one of my other systems. I'll go ahead and support it, and hope it come to fruition.</p>

<p>I suggest the OP post also to Analog Photography Users Group and the Large Format Photography Forum. Certainly nothing wrong with photo.net here, but APUG and LFPF are also populated by folks who may well be interested. </p>

<p>Best wishes and good luck!</p>

<p>Stephen,<br>

Thanks for your support. And we've posted on the other forums.</p>

<p>Joe,<br>

True, LF is pretty quiet on this forum but the two that Stephen mentioned have a lot more traffic.<br /><br />Late to the market? Maybe. But then again, Wanderlust raised over $128,000 for their Travelwide camera and the boys at Intrepid raised almost $95,000 (USD) for their new view camera. Don't forget the New55 project, they raised over $400,000 to start manufacturing a copy of Polaroid's famous film.<br>

Film, especially large format, won't ever be mainstream again. However, it isn't dead.</p>

<p>Tim</p>

<p>I do not believe that large format photography is dead. I think the biggest challenge is convincing someone that is doing large format to use this system. I use LF on a non-pro basis and I love it. My biggest question is the wash cycle, ie. how does one get a flow of water thru the system for a period of time so that the film washes on its own. Will ask that question to the designer. I use the MOD54 system and I love it. The biggest drawback is that it uses 1 liter of solution for 6 sheets of film. Depending on what developer you are using it can get expensive. It does use quite a bit of fixer, at least 200 ml per 6 sheets of film. Using the Paterson tank allows the use of a hose directly from the faucet to the center of the tank where the circulating water exists thru the edge of the tank. Will ask some questions and if satisfied will support it.</p>

The Combi-Plan also accepted a hose for force film washing.

I also use the easier to load MOD54, that takes 6 sheets and fits inside a Paterson daylight tank. Easy to load. And as easy to fill and empty as when developing any 120 or 135 film. Makes this modern version of the Combi-Plan look rather clumsy.

<p>Looks like a reasonable device and I might have bought one 20 years ago. Good to see someone still bringing out new products for LF and the darkroom. But I already have stainless steel hangars and tanks, a plastic tank like the one shown at the beginning of the video and a Combi tank. For newcomers to the field who don't already have all of that, there is so much used equipment being given away or thrown in the trash that the market for new gear, unfortunately, seems extremely limited.</p>

<p>The developer volume is great for a film sheet tank. Less than half a liter for a non rotary system is great (Jobo tanks are nice but continuous movement could be not interesting for those looking for adjacency effects).</p>

<p>In the other side, larger capacity tanks are interesting to use with higly diluted developers. Stand development is cheap. Smaller tanks could not hold the minimum ammount of solution needed to allow for longest processing times.</p>

<p>To my taste, yes, specially these days, 4 sheets are enough. At the end, I think it could be a "couple sheets" tank, a good choice for those who like full strenght, fast, on the go development. Seem small, portable, great for hotel bathroom processing. But as mentioned above, somekind of hose connection would be advisable. Needlessto say that the solution flow should assure an even development.</p>

<p>Honestly, I`d like it closer to the Combiplan, maybe with "updated materials", wide funnel/hose adapter, with a watertight cap to allow tank inversion. If I`m not wrong, there is already a tank this way.</p>

Jose, the Combi-Plan has two hose connectors and is invertible without leaking. If you have one that does leak then you

should have contacted us before last Feb. when we got rid of the last of the parts. As I have posted for years, we always

replaced at NC any leaking tops. As there were not many we did not have to replace all that many.

<p>Bob, it didn't sound to me like Jose was complaining that the Combi-Plan leaked, but that inversion was a characteristic he wanted. And mine leaks, by the way. <br>

But I'm curious about the flow when there are film holders in the tank. The demo in the video showed just a plain tank. The fluid dynamics will change when you add two holders. I'm battling irregular development in my other method and would like to have something closer to foolproof. <br>

Also, 16 oz is a pain when many film developers are mixed 1:9 - making 500ml is easier than making 475ml / 16oz. <br>

Something like this would be great for 5x7.</p>

<p>Ooops, Bob, Bethe is right. My english is not so good... <br>

I know CombiPlans, so I think hose connectors and inversion capacity are nice features I`d try to add on Gilbert`s design.</p>

<p>From an economical point of view I also wonder if it is a good idea to put a new large format tank system on the market nowadays. There are very good processors on the market, like the JOBO system. However, the JOBO processors occupy a lot of room and one day these will also break down and are very expensive new. But I like the idea suggested here: it is a small device, of simple construction (without motor and electronics) and easy to use. I would like to suggest to simplify the handling even more. Why not using a normal, plain filmholder and imersing it in the tank? In that case, the film will not have to be changed for processing: the same filmholder will be used for shooting and for processing. Most probably the film holder will need some adaption for imersing into liquid. Especially the door hinge of the adapter, which is some kind of tape, might become loose on the long term. I suggest to test, and eventually adapt, a good filmholder which is still sold new on the market, like the Toyo filmholders. In addition, if the lid of the tank will be adapted with a (or two) light locking door that opens a sleeve, similar to the back of the camera, the processing could be done just by putting the filmholder into the tank, pulling out the slide of the holder and filling the tank with developer. So, there is no need of a darkroom or light tight bag at all. This will allow the processing of the film during traveling and, even more, on sight of the shooting location.</p>

Bethe, sorry yours leaks but there no longer are any replacement tops. Too bad you didn't say something earlier when HP

Marketing was still in business.

<p>I can't imagine ever being able to clean and dry a film holder built for a camera that was also used for processing--light traps for the dark slides would soak up developer, fixer, etc., let alone have sufficient volume of solutions to work properly. But if someone could make it work, it would be nice to be able to do a sheet or two at a time without having to have the volume of chemistry required for my Jobo sheet film tank.</p>

<p>Sounds great- wish you much success!!!<br>

I think the way of the future could consider using/ adapting obsolete x-ray processing machines which are automated and inexpensive due to the obsolescence . black and while chems are in many cases reusable to a degree. I use jobo now or the old ciba tube ol Duggal haha</p>

<p>Thanks for the comments. We actually played with the 'film holder processing tank' idea and rejected for many of the reasons mentioned. It got really complicated fast.<br>

Here's a compilation of our responses to questions:<br>

<br /> First, I don't know why kickstarter won't let you use Paypal. But bear in mind that we, (the project developers), never see your credit card info. Once the project is funded, Kickstarter processes all the cards and wires us the money (after taking their cut and giving the credit card company theirs.) I would expect that they are as secure as Paypal. <br /> <br /> Regarding the 'gasket vs plunger' debate; we tried two prototypes with two different gasket configurations and decided we needed a better idea. The gasket complicates the molds for the tank/lid and brings another supplier into the mix. That raises the cost.<br /> <br /> As for 'edge to edge' uniformity, we haven't seen any problems. Note, I'm probably not as picky as many of you and our testing has been limited to E-6 and D-76. We're putting a plan together to shoot a series of controlled shots using several different films and developers and then scan them looking for issues. Probably be after Christmas before we have much more data. <br /> <br /> As for the agitation debate, I'm preparing a video to address the topic. I hope to have it published (on the kickstarter site) this weekend. <br /> <br /> As for the anti-halation backing getting removed: the only issue I've seen is the chemistry not getting to the film under the slots that hold the film. (Mainly on just one of the prototype film holders; the others are fine.) This is one reason we're making the slots wider. The rest of the film seems fine. I would think that the JOBO rotary system would have the same issue (or lack thereof) as it appears to me that the film is in firm contact with the tube.<br /> <br /> To wash, I've just removed the lid and let it flood. One could insert a tube/hose down the fill/drain chamber as well. We are looking at adding a nipple to the lid; no promises at this time.<br /> <br /> We have a 5x7/8x10 combo version sketched out (4 sheets of 5x7 or 2 sheets of 8x10). However, first, we need to get this project launched and in production. Then we'll need to do more market research to make sure there's a demand. (Launching a kickstarter takes a lot of effort.)<br /> <br /> Please continue to spread the word to your fellow photographers.</p>

 

<p>very good project. dont ever be influenced what people say. Film dead, 4x5 dead.<br />If you need more money think about spreading the informations. or ask people here to inform about places to do.<br />i often wondered, when i saw good ideas which were not backed why i didnt see them earlier elsewhere.</p>

 

<p>Some may buy it. But, if it won't give me better results I can see in finished prints - why would I buy it?<br>

You are going into a group that is often set in their ways and 'new and improved' usually isn't.</p>

<p>This is a very interesting discussion as I've just acquired my first 4x5 camera (used) and am trying to figure out the best system for developing my own B+W film. I missed the closing date for this tank system so what are the other redly available choices as a reasonable cost for both the equipment and amount of chemicals needed? BTW, I've been looking at the Monobath Developer from New55. Anyone have experience with it yet?</p>

<p>Any updates on your interesting project?</p>

<p>William, they just opened the product up for the general public.</p>

I own one and I really like it. Only 500ml of solution compared to 55 oz on the Yankee tank. And I do not have uneven

development like with the Yankee. I will say that it seems to leak solution, but I've never had a light leak of any sort.

Used it about 6-8 times with no problems. Also, I will note that the negatives have small streaks from the "film holder",

but they are invisible when scanned. They did worry me at first, but as I said, they are not visible when scanning or

printing...the top portion never seems to sit flush with the bottom portion, but it isn't loose. I think it is just a result of the

rubber o-ring not having a catch on the bottom portion of the tank to "lock". When I agitate, I put one hand in between the

two openings to ensure it stays together. I bought it at a discount when they had "extras" from the Kickstarter run, but I

would say it's worth the full asking price.

 

I thought about going with the Jobos, but they are kind of expensive, even used...

I own one as well and like it as well. The holders are about as easy to load as a film holder. I really like that It uses little solution, so I can develop more negatives with the same amount of dry Caffenol ingredients. This is the 1st sheet film tank I have ever used. I do wish that they made racks for 2.25x3.25 inch film, as that would make development of the little film much easier. Some people would probably want 3x4 inch film racks as well.

The CombiPlan offered an accessory rack that took up to 12 2.25x3.25 sheets. They are hard to find now and require the 2 blue washers for proper spacing. Of course the Combi also took 3x4 as well as 4x5 with no added parts required. The entire system has been discontinued for a while and that accessory tray for many years.